Benefits Not Choices
Introduction
Scott Armstrong seeks evidence for the principle that one should focus on benefits or features, rather than choices, when facing resistance
: : : Posting
: : dialog
In the draft of my book Persuasive Advertising, I have a principle , but no evidence (which is a problem for me). Anyone know of evidence for or against the following principle?
Focus on benefits or features rather than choices when facing resistance
Once people have made a product choice, they become resistant to alternatives. For example, if they have purchased a particular brand of Vodka in the past, they will be resistant to suggestions that they should purchase a different brand. This resistance to change is strong even if their initial selection is not optimal for their current needs.
An attempt to get people to change their choice (e.g., away from a currently used brand) could lead them to defend that current choice-otherwise, they might look irrational. Instead of asking customers to make a choice, then, ask them to first think about the benefits or features they desire, and then consider how the available options meet their criteria. Thus, they will look rational by picking the choice that is consistent with their criteria.
For example, an ad could ask people if they would prefer to control some of their investments or have politicians make their investment decisions. Then, ask them to consider the choice between the U.S. Social Security System as it exists in 2008 and private investment accounts as used in many countries.
Scott Armstrong
J. Scott Armstrong
Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, U. of PA.. Phila., PA 19104
Phone 610-622-6480
Home address: 645 Harper Ave., Drexel Hill, PA 19026
Fax 215-898 2534
Homepage: